On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 02:49:35PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > On 16/03/13(Sat) 11:51, Jonathan Gray wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 03:30:00PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > tatus: O > > > Content-Length: 119872 > > > Lines: 4249 > > > > > > ueagle(4) is the only driver requiring netnatm and none of them are > > > enabled in GENERIC. All commits touching this code are just fixups > > > for fallouts of other changes. > > > > > > Would anyone mourn their deportation to the Attic? > > > > > > In other words, ok to tedu them? Diff below. > > > > > > Martin > > > > The only reason it is disabled in GENERIC is that the config > > logic needs to be fixed, here is a diff to do that: > > Sure we can fix the logic, but does that mean that somebody wants to > enable it in GENERIC? Use it? Maintain it? > > I see no point in keeping code that has been disabled for more than > 7 years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it going just pointing out the likely reason that ueagle was disabled.
